I don't think he was a panto villain in SOTL. He still scares the crap out of me, but he can also make me laugh. I like that in a villain. It's why I enjoy Sherlock's version of Moriarty so much. You can't really get more OTT than that.

Prince of Thieves is one of my favourite movies. Alan plays a brilliant baddie.

One of my favourite OTT villains has to be the Kurgan from Highlander. I think he's hilarious, but I wouldn't want to cross him in a dark alley.

It might just be because I like OTT villains, but it was one of my favourite performances of Anthony's. I'm not belittling Brian Cox when I say this. I think he's a brilliant actor. I just prefer Hopkins' potrayal of the character. Have you ever seen Nostalgia Critic's video comparing Manhunter to Red Dragan? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOh-5nmVVoU. I agree with a lot of what he says, but I prefer Norton's version of Will Graham.

The French and Saunders sketch always makes me laugh:D

I cannot agree, I think over-exposure and over-familiarity essentially cheapens and dilutes a character over time, and therefore lessens the impact of the character when you watch he movie again.

As much as I enjoyed Hopkins portrayal of the character at the time, I now find it hard to take seriously because not only have too many inferior sequels been made, but like the Freddy Kreuger character it has been parodied mercilessly by Simpsons, Family Guy, French and Saunders and endless other similar shows, and people were walking around doing their oh-so-witty 'I ate his liver with some fava beans and a nice chianti..ffffffftttttt' impression...since when do serial killers have catchphrases, for gods sake?

When something like this becomes so iconic that it is considered fair game for everyone and anyone to mimic or ridicule it, I don't see how anyone can claim they can still go back years later and state that the character still has the same impact.

The same thing happened with the Matrix movies...it introduced us to 'bullet-time' photography, which we all thought was cool and unique at the tie...until every blasted action director started using it, them came the skits and the parodies...so by the time the second and third movies came along we were heartily sick of it.

I cannot agree, I think over-exposure and over-familiarity essentially cheapens and dilutes a character over time, and therefore lessens the impact of the character when you watch he movie again.

As much as I enjoyed Hopkins portrayal of the character at the time, I now find it hard to take seriously because not only have too many inferior sequels been made, but like the Freddy Kreuger character it has been parodied mercilessly by Simpsons, Family Guy, French and Saunders and endless other similar shows, and people were walking around doing their oh-so-witty 'I ate his liver with some fava beans and a nice chianti..ffffffftttttt' impression...since when do serial killers have catchphrases, for gods sake?

When something like this becomes so iconic that it is considered fair game for everyone and anyone to mimic or ridicule it, I don't see how anyone can claim they can still go back years later and state that the character still has the same impact.

The same thing happened with the Matrix movies...it introduced us to 'bullet-time' photography, which we all thought was cool and unique at the tie...until every blasted action director started using it, them came the skits and the parodies...so by the time the second and third movies came along we were heartily sick of it.

People turning one of his lines into a catchphrase doesn't change how I feel about him. I love Heath Ledger's potrayal of the Joker and that didn't change when people started saying "Why... so... serious?" all the time. I still love Dracula despite the fact that there are endless parodies and spoofed lines. I don't see anything wrong with killers having catchphrases is movies.

When I watch the scene where Hannibal says his famous line, I'm not thinking of the parodies. I'm thinking of the movie and how amazing Hopkins is in it.

I cannot agree, I think over-exposure and over-familiarity essentially cheapens and dilutes a character over time, and therefore lessens the impact of the character when you watch he movie again.

As much as I enjoyed Hopkins portrayal of the character at the time, I now find it hard to take seriously because not only have too many inferior sequels been made, but like the Freddy Kreuger character it has been parodied mercilessly by Simpsons, Family Guy, French and Saunders and endless other similar shows, and people were walking around doing their oh-so-witty 'I ate his liver with some fava beans and a nice chianti..ffffffftttttt' impression...since when do serial killers have catchphrases, for gods sake?

When something like this becomes so iconic that it is considered fair game for everyone and anyone to mimic or ridicule it, I don't see how anyone can claim they can still go back years later and state that the character still has the same impact.

The same thing happened with the Matrix movies...it introduced us to 'bullet-time' photography, which we all thought was cool and unique at the tie...until every blasted action director started using it, them came the skits and the parodies...so by the time the second and third movies came along we were heartily sick of it.

I find it very easy to shut out parodies etc when watching the original source. The line said by Hopkins isn't a catchphrase, the imitators have turned it into one. The Pffffft moment is as chilling as ever - the parodies don't have build up, don't have Jodie's reaction.

Only last night I watched Psycho - as stunning and brilliant as it always has been, yet not once did I think of all the "shower scene" parodies.

The only thing that dates Manhunter is the 80's Miami Vice sheen to it, but then Mann had not long finished his involement with the tv series, so that's understandable.

But you are also right about the cast...Petersen was never better, except maybe in To Live and Die In LA. The great Dennis Farina, Stephen Lang (his scene strapped in the wheelchair is mesmerising and terrifying), Tom Noonan, an overpowering presence ('You owe me awe!), and Joan Allen in an early role (The scene with the live tiger is just one of many brilliant moments that this movie is just filled with).

Slightly OT but I totally agree with you about To Live and Die in LA. No-one seems to talk about it now but it's an excellent film.

What I love about this film, is that I have seen it several times, but it still creeps me out. Anthony Hopkins give one of my fav performance ever done an actor, and it was as if Jodie Foster was born to play Clarice. Amazing chemistry between them both. In fact, i think this film is a classic. I like to forget that the following films about Hannibal never existed and you are left with an simply ambigious creepy killer.

It is one of the first times that a serial killer character was portrayed for the way he felt and thought rather than for what he did and the crimes he committed. Hannibal Lector was given a voice whereas before you had characters in horror movies like Freddie and Jason just killing everyone. Viewers were given an insight into the mind of someone who was as disturbed as Hannibal Lector.

People do get carried away with the Brian Cox love don't they, as I recall he was only in Manhunter for a brief time. Both great actors but Hopkins got some serious screen time and produced one of the great screen characters.

Hopkins and Cox......this comes up regularly.
Imo Hopkins in SOTL is incomparable... chilling, drolly amusing and charming by turn.
SOTL a truly great film with great performances and direction improves with every viewing........Ted Levine is also memorable.
The Cox fans have a point , with Hopkins's performances in the sequels.becoming quite silly
SOTL is perfection.

I find it very easy to shut out parodies etc when watching the original source. The line said by Hopkins isn't a catchphrase, the imitators have turned it into one. The Pffffft moment is as chilling as ever - the parodies don't have build up, don't have Jodie's reaction.

Only last night I watched Psycho - as stunning and brilliant as it always has been, yet not once did I think of all the "shower scene" parodies.

I still think SOTL is a excellent movie, and Hopkins did create a very unique, chilling character in Lecter.

It's just that after 20 years of parodies, skits and impressions for me have taken their toll and it does dilute the character. It might have also helped if there had been no inferior sequels, which also meant that the character became over-exposed and too familiar.

The over-familiarity is an important factor, because when a famous character gets so much exposure people can tire of it, and they lose their appeal.

Terminator is another good example of this. The image of Arnie wearing black leather, sunglasses and with a huge gun was one of the defining cinematic images of the 80's and 90's. Then it was copied endlessly by other movies, more sequels, parodies, skits etc...until it reached the point where people just said enough, leave it alone now.

That said...it seems we are now going through an 80's action movie nostalgia phase and Arnie seems to be back in the saddle making action movies with the requisite quips and yes...big guns.

People do get carried away with the Brian Cox love don't they, as I recall he was only in Manhunter for a brief time. Both great actors but Hopkins got some serious screen time and produced one of the great screen characters.

I think the very fact that Brian Cox made such an impact with very brief screentime makes it even more impressive. I actually saw SOTL a good time before I saw Manhunter - so with me it isn't a case of the first characterisation being better - its just that even NOT seeing Manhunter - Anthony Hopkins' performance still had me quite giggly. I do like the film (but as I've said - I don't think I'd regard it quite so highly if it wasn't for the performance of Jodie Foster). I DO love Anthony Hopkins but IMO SOTL is definitely not the best work he's done.

I do think (taking the WHOLE cast performances into account) that Manhunter is more satisfying film.

Really? I couldn't take William McNamara seriously in Copycat, and I felt it spoiled the whole film. Everything was set up for it to be a classic, but poor casting in the role of the most important element (the serial killer) let it down.

SOTL is the king of psychological thrillers for me, with Se7en a close second. Hannibal and Red Dragon are watchable.

Though like both Manhunter and SOTL, I never really feel the need to compare or decide which is the best. They are very different movies stylisticaly and thematically.

And Manhunter is more of a police procedeural/thriller than a horror movie. And though SOTL also has elements of a procedeural and highlights the detective elements, it does emphasise the horror a lot more.

I hated that ending - as, apparently, did Jodie Foster, because she refused to be in the film after reading the book and assuming they would end the same way.

The movie ending of Hannibal was slightly better, but rather made the whole film feel utterly pointless, as it effectively left off in the same place as Silence of the Lambs with nothing having moved forward.